State of Tennessee v. Mario Antoine Leggs
The Defendant, Mario Antoine Leggs, was convicted by a jury of theft, robbery, two counts of reckless endangerment, aggravated robbery, two counts of evading arrest, three counts of reckless aggravated assault, leaving the scene of an accident, and driving on a suspended license. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of twenty-three years, eleven months, and twenty-eight days in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to sever the offenses; (2) whether the trial court erred by admitting prior identification testimony; (3) whether the Defendant is entitled to a new trial based upon improper remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument; (4) whether the trial court erred by not reducing the Defendant's three convictions for reckless aggravated assault to simple assault; (5) whether the trial court erred by not merging one of the Defendant's convictions for evading arrest with his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident; and (6) whether the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. We hold that the trial court erred by not severing the offenses that occurred on November 16, 2000. However, we deem the error harmless. Because we find insufficient evidence to support the Defendant's second conviction for evading arrest, we reverse it and dismiss that charge. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kathleen Earley vs. Robert Earley
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
W2002-01946-COA-R3-CV
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
John Wayne Goodman v. City of Savannah And Savannah
|
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Bronson vs. Horace Umphries vs. Norfolk Railway
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Frank Hooper Lacey v. Karla Suzanne Lacey
|
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
State v. Maurice Nash
|
Tipton | Supreme Court | |
Gwendolyn Jackson vs. Zodie Hamilton
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sandra Ann Whaley, alias Sandy Ann Whaley
The appellant, Sandra Ann Whaley, was convicted by a jury in the Hamilton County Criminal Court of driving under the influence (DUI) and assault. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration in the workhouse, to be suspended upon service of thirty days in confinement. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her DUI conviction and she also complains about the sentences imposed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Flora King vs. John B. Oakley
|
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
M2002-00812-COA-R3-CV
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Louis Federico v. Aladdin Industries
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Paula Bowman v. State
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Johnny Gant v. Suncom Wireless
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Dennis Joslin Co. vs. William Johnson
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Gregory Morris vs. Shelby Co.
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
W2002-01532-COA-R3-CV
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Town of Oakland v. Town of Somerville,
|
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
Gloria J. Guinn v. Lucious T. Guinn
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Marcia McAlexander vs. Albert McAlexander
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tracy Lebron Vick v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Tracy Lebron Vick, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Vick pled guilty to second-degree murder and received a forty-year sentence, as a range II multiple offender. On appeal, Vick challenges the validity of his guilty plea upon grounds of voluntariness and ineffective assistance of counsel. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Department of Children's Srvcs vs. B.L.K. & E.C.C.
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Barbara Pritchett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Larry
|
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Clara Jean Neblett
Appellant, Clara Jean Neblett, was indicted by the Robertson County Grand Jury for aggravated assault and unlawful possession of a weapon. A jury found Appellant guilty of both counts. Appellant was sentenced to four years for her aggravated assault conviction and thirty days for her possession of a weapon conviction, to be served concurrently. In this appeal, Appellant challenges: (1) the trial court's ruling that defense counsel could not impeach the victim's testimony using extrinsic evidence of a prior bad act; (2) the trial court's denial of post-trial diversion; and (3) the trial court's refusal to apply mitigating factors to Appellant's sentence. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hughes D. Cadwell
Defendant, Hughes D. Cadwell, was convicted in the Williamson County General Sessions Court for driving on a suspended license on December 23, 1997. He received a ninety-day suspended sentence and six months probation. On June 22, 1998, a probation violation warrant was issued, alleging that Defendant had failed to maintain monthly contact with his probation officer and that he had failed to pay probation fees and respond to a written request for action. Defendant was not arrested on the warrant until February 6, 2002. At the February 13, 2002, hearing in Williamson County General Sessions Court, Defendant pled true to the probation violation, and the court ordered him to serve the ninety-day sentence. Defendant appealed to the Williamson County Circuit Court on February 15, 2002. The circuit court conducted a hearing to determine whether to reinstate Defendant's probation. The court then dismissed the appeal on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction because Defendant had pled true to the probation violation. We conclude that the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear Defendant's appeal from the general sessions court, de novo, and therefore, we remand the case to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals |